Vegetorrian vs. Carntrevor

Stuarts response to `How to frustrate a Vegetorian' was `Many of us are not suicide bombers!'

Perhaps one or two people have been spectators to our debate, if true could someone comment on whether the accusation `Trevor gives the impression of wanting to argue for a conclusion he already holds' is valid? I thought I was trying pretty hard to find the weakness in my argument?

The next accusation is that I treat people who hold `anti-death' vegetarian views as weird. Again... I don't think this is true, I may disagree and not understand their point of view though.

Another accusation is that I am retreating to pointing out the holes in "most vegetarians" arguments. While I have read Stuart's posts on his vegetarianism, I have not read a lot on the subject other than on his blog. I am not trying to understand other vegetarians and do believe that many of them have not thought through their motivation to even a fraction of the extent that Stuart has. I would think this is true of most voters, most religious devotees, sports fans... and pretty much any other view people hold. Most people don't think things through and then asked for a logical explanation will struggle. So... no I am not retreating to the "most" argument since I think Stuart agrees that "most" arguments are riddled with holes and illogical... I am more interested in compelling arguments.

Here are some points I think have come from our discussion. (I am not reviewing all the hundreds of post, I write quickly and what comes in to my head... so if I forget a point, it hasn't sunk in...)

1) Most meat eaters eat too much meat in their diet.
2) Including meat in your diet likely to allow for a healthier diet. Vegetarians are not de facto healthier than people who include meat in their diet.
3) I accept that adopting a general rule of not eating meat because of animal suffering is an acceptable one. I have to work out my own justification for the opposite view that I currently subscribe to of not getting sufficiently upset about it to stop eating meat.
4) I also accept that the "I am a vegetarian" approach is more tactful than demanding "cruelty-free" meat.
5) The anti-death view that does not depend on animal suffering is the one I understand less. I have not read or heard an argument for this view yet that convinces me as a strong argument. I accept however that death may upset some people and so they prefer it not to be in their diet. I do not find it compelling enough to upset me or make me uneasy. I find the suffering view stronger.
6) I don't have a problem with raising animals for the sole goal of eating them if the conditions in which they live are fine.

The thing is people don't like feeling like they are being morally judged, which is probably a large reason why vegetarianism gets under the skin of others. I would imagine most people would be upset with the degree of animal suffering if it was conspicuous. It isn't. We don't see the animals in the farm factories.

Is it a problem making people feel uncomfortable about things that you believe to be true?

Well... for the most part I get upset with religious people who do this because I see little justification in judgement.

As I said, this kind of thing gives me `impending doom' because I find the idea of being very accepting of different points of view very appealing. Hard-core truth seeking is not in that game. It actually pushes you to feel uncomfortable in a far more real way when logic and reason are involved.

In most places this easier because this more intellectual than practical... but here you are being as practical as it gets. What am I going to eat.

Yes, I eat more meat than I should. I like vegetables but don't eat as much of them as I should... because I prefer meat. I eat negligible amounts of fruit.